About your Search

20121226
20130103
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
the wall street journal, or the pentagon indicated they wanted to maintain 6000 to 15th thousand u.s. troops following 2014. that is the issue under discussion now. there's approximately around 340 0,000 afghan security forces in place, including the police. the pentagon recently indicated i don't believe there was a major unit capable of operating independently from nato support. there was some manipulation of the metrics they were using where the things appear to be making more progress than perhaps they were. that came out in a white paper. what will be the long term success or failure of the afghan national security forces is yet to be determined. they need about $4.1 billion a year to continue at that level, which is more than the entire government revenues in afghanistan. so it's gone to take a long-term commitment of foreign powers to maintain that size of armed forces. the afghans have proven that they are excellent fighters. the question is will they be excellent soldiers for the government of afghanistan? host: one other question, how stable do you think the karzai govern
. the pentagon says there have been at least 154 suicides among active-duty troops through last thursday. a rate of nearly one each day. >> every day in this country, 18 veterans are committing suicide. 17% of the individuals in combat in afghanistan -- my brothers and sisters -- are on psychotropic medication. >> president obama announces the ministers and most of deporting hundreds of thousands of undocumented you whose parents brought them to the nine states. >> these were young people who studied in our schools, play in our neighborhoods, they are friends with our kids. they pledge allegiance to our flag. they are americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one, on paper. now let's be clear, this is not amnesty, this is not immunity. this is not a path to citizenship. it is not a permanent fix. this is a temporary stopgap measure. >> biking as far redefined immigrants might movement in this country. we are taking a lead now. now we are unstoppable. i think our responsibilities to our community, to our parents, to the adults, is to continue that work, to look for permane
cuts kicking in. especially for defense. right now, the pentagon's looking at something in the neighborhood of a $55 billion cut in 2013, about 10% of its programs, and specifically, the "wall street journal," among others, reporting that the pentagon is making contingency plans to notify 800,000 civilian employees about possible furloughs. so this is front and center right now. and among those also sounding the alarm, senator lindsey graham after getting a call from defense secretary leon panetta over the weekend. >> last night at 7:30 during dinner, he said, lindsey, i'm told there's not going to be anything in this deal to avoid sequestration going into effect. >> there you have it in a nutshell. again, number one, we are getting hopefully a little more optimistic about either a short-term patchwork deal, setting the table for something bigger after the first of the year. but again, we've been talking primarily just on the tax side of the equation, the issue for the pentagon, the defense industry, and frankly, a whole lot of civilian employees, what about the sequeste
'm an employee of the pentagon or some place which there are tens of thousands of employees, is there any possibility that any deal that that come up with is going to disproportionately affect a department like that or does that happen across the board? >> well, everything as it is right now is determined by the -- a law that was passed in 2011, the budget control act. that's what set in motion this trigger for sequestration. in that law, roughly half was supposed to go to the department of defense and half in nondefense agencies. but given that, they will be -- that's one of the things that there's uncertainty among federal employees also, because we don't know yet how much discretion agencies will have and how they implement their cuts. and, again, a lot of focus is on sequestration, those automatic cuts. but that law also put in place spending caps that will affect cuts that are even larger than the sequestration cuts. so cuts are definitely coming. that's not even a question. >> ifill: it's not debatable. >> it's just how large they will be and who will be impacted by those cuts. and
, it is not a philanthropic act on the pentagon's part to instruct boeing to build. -- to build in the deficit areas of the u.s. it is pragmatic. the united states federal government -- unless europe is dollarized, unless they do not have dollars to spend purchasing -- unless those who do not have dollars are given dollars to spend purchasing, the net exports of those who have surpluses, then they will stop having surplus. this is the surplus recycling mechanism. thus, we have the 20 years of the golden age. the 1950's and the 1960's. a period of immense stability very low inflation. very low unemployment. universal growth. we had other problems. the lease from the macroeconomic point of view, it was a golden age. why did it end? because the global surplus of recycling mechanism could no longer be sustained. why? because the united states stopped having a surplus by the end of the 1960's. how can you recycle surplus if you cannot have it. -- if you do not have it? enter a young turk in 1971. actually, he was the american, but you know what i mean. well, paul volcker -- that name may ring a bell. in 1971, pau
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)